A little before many here at A Net's time but, I've always wondered how Richard M. Nixon could rise from the ashes of political defeat and win the Presidency in 1968. Of course he lost a squeaker to JFK in 1960. But, in 1962 he ran for governor of California against Pat Brown I believe and was soundly trounced. He then gave his famous statement: You won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore! Well flash forward to the year from hell 1968. How could he even be nominated? I believe Nixon was one of the few men who lost their first Presidential election and came back to win the Presidency the second time around.
If Nixon could do it do you feel Al Gore could come back in 2008 and get elected to the Presidency?

Tricky Dick was in the right place at the right time. After the Goldwater debacle of '64, the GOP didn't have any clear-cut favorite, and Nixon kept his nose to the grindstone, and to his credit, hung in there.

Of course, as you say, '68 was one of the most mind-numbing years in modern American history, and he ran on a promise to get the US out of Vietnam. He didn't keep it until AFTER he expanded the war, but that promise, along with the death of Bobby Kennedy, and the fiasco that was the '68 DNC in Chicago, made this Cold Warrior look absolutely reasonable to mainstream America, which, in many ways, he was.

And despite some good things he might have done, like opening up relations with China, his pettiness as a man and his insecurity and suspicion of political "enemies" was his undoing.

But give the man credit. He did what very few politicians of any age have done-resurrected himself from political exile, to gain the ultimate prize.

RMN was appealing as the Democratic Party, as well as the whole country, seemed to coming apart at the seams. I was only seven at the time, but I remember Bobby Kennedy and MLK's assainations. Then watching the Democratic convention in Chicago (The Whole World's Watching!!!) it looked like the Republicans would give the country some calm.

I still believe that had Bobby not been assassinated, he would have been elected President in '68, and Lord knows what that means for some of the history that followed: not just Watergate, but realtions with China, the end of the war (I think it would have ended sooner), and a host of other things.

I think ONLY Nixon, at the time could have opened detent with the Communists. To have had a liberal Democrat try it would have caused some sort of uproar, by Nixon's self described "silent majority". Now granted, Nixon was almost a "liberal" in some ways, passing some environmental laws and such, but his stance as an anti-Communist, just made the effort to open dialogue, more believable...

In the long term, after all of us who were alive when Nixon was in the White House, are dead and gone, I suspect he'll go down as one of our better Presidents.

I went to his funeral/wake in Yorba Linda back in 1994. I stood in line for 7 hours to see his casket.
Nixon was decent on some domestic social issues and we were lucky to have a Democratic Congress when he was President.
Nixon also appointed Harry Blackmund to the Supreme Court which was one of the best things he'd done as President.

I have some respect for Nixon was a hell of a lot better than Reagan and certainly Dubya.

Another contributor to Nixon's win was George Wallace's third party run in 1968. Southern states still voted mostly for Democrats at the time, and Wallace's strong run took electoral votes that would probably have gone to Humphrey if it had been a two man race.

I'm not dumb. I just have a command of thoroughly useless information.

Dvk:
Are you sure about that?
In 1964, Berry Goldwater was the first Republican to win SC, GA, AL and MS since reconstruction. By 1968, those Dixiecrats were starting to defect to the Republican Party. I doubt they would have supported Humphrey/Muskie.
Texas still went to Humphrey though.

A race between RN and Bobby Kennedy would have been a great contest. And Wallace's third party might have been a player, as well. But I believe that the Republicans offered a more "palatable" ideology, for the time. The war, the riots, and the train wreck that was the convention in Chicago.

If RFK had not been killed, would the '68 convention been as insane? Daley was tight with the Kennedy family, so perhaps it would have been different....

Superfly: I think the vote was close enough that the Wallace factor can't be discounted, and I don't think Nixon had a clear edge over Humphrey when Wallace wasn't part of the equation.

I think that, had RFK not been killed, he would have won, and probably fairly easily. It had been less than five years since JFK's death, Chappaquidick had not yet occurred, and Jackie had not yet married Ari. The Kennedys were still relatively unblemished, and most of the country supported them.

I'm not dumb. I just have a command of thoroughly useless information.

The police and protesters clashed outside the convention, and it was broadcast live. Inside the hall, Mayor Daley's goons were causing trouble on the floor of the convention, and a speaker (who's name escapes me) made a remark about it. TV cameras cut to Daley, who mouths f*** you. People were getting roughed up on the floor, Dan Rather being one of them.

I must clearly admit, I am a dedicated Democrat and in 1972, my first election (the first 18 y.o.'s could vote in) I didn't vote for Nixon. Compared to today's Republican party leadership, Nixon could be considered a liberal-moderate. In 1960 one has to realize he only lost by a tiny margin and some of the Democrat's votes in Illinois, especially in Chicago were highly suspected to be dead people (such was the Demo machine in Chicago then).
As to his rise from the ashes, after his defeat for Governor of California, he came to NY City, became a member of a law firm (yes, he was a lawyer, went to Duke Univ. Law school if I am correct) that later included his name. With contacts he developed in NYC and the Republican party in disarray and needing someone experienced in Washington DC, whom was palatable to the bulk of the Repuplican party, Nixon quickly became the favorite. The Democrats would have their votes split by the Wallace 3rd party campaign, especially in the southern states. There was the beginnings of the backlash of liberal polices, further inflamed by the racial riots that hit and runied many cities all over the USA from 1964 to 1968. The Democarts lost a lot of white votes due to the riots. One other theme Nixon ran on was to go on an anti-crime 'law and order' platform, which was heightened by the violent protests at the Democratic convention in Chicago in 1968. This was also a time of fast changes in society as to drug use and sex. Like today's Republicans, his message was one of morals over crime and 'different' social beheavors.
He accepted moderate yet important changes in society such as civil rights, enviroment improvement laws, protection of water, yet enough entitlements to keep many happy. His undoing was his overzelous campaign in 1972, and the related use of the IRS, FBI, other agencies and his 'dirty tricks' group to make sure he ran without opposition. What got him with 'watergate' was the cover up of his wrongdoing.
After leaving office, he settled back in NY City and later for many years, in New Jersey, writing several good selling books on international politics.

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 15):What got him with 'watergate' was the cover up of his wrongdoing

And the sad, sad fact WAS, he didn't even NEED to mess with the Democrats in 1972. The '72 election was almost a pure Nixon landslide. McGovern, though a good guy, was NOT what was needed at the time. The dumping of Eagleton from the ticket, wasn't a help, either.

I remember staying up watching the convention (Hell, I was 11, and it was summer, so I could stay up late) and that convention just went on and on and on. It was well after midnight, Central Time, when the official nomination was placed. McGovern, himself said, that the only place that saw the nomination in prime time was Hawaii.

TriStarEnvy:
I've read that in early 1972, Senator Edmond Muskie was leading President Nixon by 10+ point. Early on in the year, his re-election wasn't yet a sure thing and him being the paranoid kind of guy he was still went ahead with this operation.
Also George Wallace won 11 Democratic primaries dividing the liberal vote within the Democratic Party.
1972 looked like a real mess for the Democratic Presidential candidates.

Quoting StevenUhl777 (Reply 2):Ironically, his son-in-law is running for the Senate seat against HRC next year...it was on MSNBC today.

I know Ed Cox, who's running against Hillary. His son and I went to elementary school together for eight years. Ed's a good guy, so's his son. Very intellectual family. I wish him well on his campaign.